What we now know after the Committee hearing? [View all]

[kentuck]

First of all, we know that Sally Yates visit to the White House was more than a "heads up", as Sean Spicer has stated on several occasions. If she had only made a phone call, instead of two visits, one requested by WH Counsel, then it could have been called a "heads up". But with the meetings and follow-up phone calls, it would more appropriately be called a warning.

She also stated that Russia knew more about the phone calls than did Vice President Pence. That is how she came to the conclusion that Flynn had been compromised. Although she did not say it directly, it was apparent that Flynn had lied to the FBI.

There were contradictions about when Donald Trump knew about the warning from Sally Yates. Sean Spicer had stated in a February 14th conference that the President did know.

Also, General Clapper had responded to a question about "masking" that there were two individuals, one in the Trump transition and one in Congress, that had been "unmasked" in the investigation? We do not know who they might have been?

Clapper also said that the paramount issue was the Russian interference in our election and that "leaks" and "unmasking" were smaller tangential issues. That was an important point for him to make.

Also, we discovered that Sally Yates was a very competent and intelligent witness who was not intimidated by Cornyn, Cruz, or Kennedy (R-LA). She showed that she was very familiar with the law in the questioning by Cruz, Cornyn, and Kennedy. Those Republican Senators seemed more intent on trying to score political points than getting at the truth?

Also, we learned that Flynn was in on the phone call between Putin and Trump, after the White House had been warned that he had been compromised. Trump kept him in his position, after the facts, for 18 days, and had had access to intelligence during those days.

As for information purposes, this was the most important hearing that we have witnessed thus far.